Primary Navigation

Signals, Noise, and UFO Waves

Signals, Noise, and UFO Waves By Richard Hall Over the past 50 years a seeming outbreak of UFO sightings has captured public and news media attention on

Message 1 of 1
, Oct 1, 1999

0 Attachment

Signals, Noise, and UFO Waves
By Richard Hall
Over the past 50 years a seeming outbreak of UFO sightings has captured
public and news media attention on average about every five to eight years.
Sometimes the sightings have been sufficiently spectacular that the
publicity has led someone to attempt a scientific study, but these studies
usually bog down in confusion and controversy, and the interest fades away.

News media interest comes and goes, the press tending to treat UFOs as a
�silly season� topic. Ufologists continue to compile data suggesting that
UFO sightings tend to come in waves, but no particular pattern has been
found that would even begin to bowl scientists off their feet. For whatever
reasons, the UFO phenomenon�or attention to it�ebbs and flows over the
years. A number of studies have been conducted on the so-called UFO waves
(once called �flaps�) in an attempt to understand their significance.
Relatively less examined is the sighting troughs between waves. During these
slack periods when UFOs seem to go away (but really don�t), what happens?
What, if anything, is different about UFO manifestations during the trough
periods? Are there any characteristic types of trough-period sightings that
might provide a useful clue about what they are up to? To study these
questions, I first reviewed some literature to arrive at a good consensus on
major waves, and on definite periods of low sighting frequency on an
international basis. (See References and Notes at end of article.) As noted
elsewhere, sighting waves are partly apparent and partly real; some mixture
of a real upturn in sightings and the attendant publicity, or lack of it
(Hall, 1988, pp. 213�224). Since it usually takes many years to flesh out
the data and to uncover obscure cases, I have used the time period from 1947
through the mid-1980s in this study rather than more recent time periods.
The established consensus waves are indicated in Table 1 at the end of this
article, in two categories: (1) pronounced waves (several countries on
several continents) and (2) other concentrated periods of sightings on a
somewhat smaller scale, located nationally or regionally. These waves are
pretty well agreed upon by most researchers. >From a study of the Project
Blue Book microfilms and three other references (Clark, 1998; Andrus and
Hall, 1987; Hall, 1999) it was possible to derive four rather clear-cut
trough periods between 1947 and the mid-1980s, each lasting three to four
years:

� 1948�1951
� 1958�1960
� 1970�1972
� 1979�1981

I can confirm from personal experience the 1958�1960 trough, a veritable
drought, because those were my first three years at the National
Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), in Washington, D.C. At
that time NICAP was very much in the news, and people knew where to report
sightings, but several objective measures confirm my impressions: sightings
were scarce all over the world at that time (Hall, 1994). An examination of
the UFO cases that occurred during these sighting troughs primarily confirms
that there is no qualitative change in the reports. Exactly the same kinds
of events were reported as at other times. They included disc- and
elliptical- shaped objects, radar trackings, and vehicle encounters. In
fact, a strong case for the reality of UFOs could be made by ignoring the
wave period sightings altogether, and concentrating exclusively on sightings
from the trough periods. For example, many classic cases occurred during the
1948�1951 trough, including the 1948 Chiles-Whitted airline encounter,
several significant cases at White Sands, New Mexico, and the 1950 Great
Falls, Montana, movie film. (See Table 2.) After the November 1957 wave,
UFOs once again seemingly disappeared�or drastically cut back activities if
we are thinking in terms of visitors from space�for three years. But the
disappearance was mostly from the pages of newspapers and the airwaves.
After-the-fact historical research shows that there was a steady flow of
sightings throughout 1958, with a slight increase in October. Not a large
number, but plenty to demonstrate the continuity of the phenomenon.
Similarly, throughout 1959 and 1960, a steady flow of absolutely typical
UFOs were reported. Again, many highly significant and classic cases
occurred during the 1958�1960 sighting trough. (See Table 3.) They included
the Trindade Isle, Brazil, photographs in 1958; the 1959 Father Gill case in
Papua New Guinea; and the Red Bluff, California, state police sighting in
1960.

The UFO evidence
In preparation for my new volume of The UFO Evidence, I conducted an
extensive literature survey and compiled data on UFO sightings for the
30-plus years since the cut-off date of the original 1964 report. Using
those data, I have studied the 1970�1972 and 1979�1981 sighting troughs
fairly intensively, looking for anything different, possibly a scientific
clue of some kind.

The major difference in UFO manifestation during this period, obviously, was
the eruption of the abduction phenomenon. However, typical UFO sightings
continued to be made. Again, there was no qualitative difference between the
waves and the troughs as far as UFO sightings were concerned. Were there any
�unusual� or different activities during the troughs in addition to typical
UFO sightings? Sometimes yes, and it may be in this area that we need to
focus in the search for clues. Each major sighting wave has tended to
introduce or to intensify some startling or attention-getting feature. In
1952 it was the radar-visual and jet interception cases. The 1957 wave
featured a rash of electromagnetic effects on vehicles. In 1966 and 1967,
vehicle encounter cases multiplied. The 1973 wave brought us a rash of
humanoid encounters. But what about during the troughs?

Unusual events during troughs
Let us examine each trough period in turn for relatively unusual occurrences
that may or may not have later become more common. During the 1948�1951
trough (see Table 2):

� UFOs interacted with test vehicles at White Sands Proving Grounds, New
Mexico, in 1949 circling a missile in flight and in 1951 circling a Skyhook
balloon.

� At least three military pilots in scattered locations engaged in intensive
�dogfights� with glowing UFOs (in one case a clear-cut disc), also seen by
independent observers in two of the cases.

� The mysterious and still unexplained green fireballs appeared, primarily
over New Mexico, observed by many scientists in November 1951, just before
the colossal 1952 sighting wave began. Also notable in these events is the
concentration over sensitive military and scientific installations in New
Mexico. This fact was commented upon in at least two Air Force documents
(Hall, 1988, p. 200). One, an OSI report from New Mexico in 1950, expressed
concern about �the continued occurrence of unexplained phenomena of this
nature in the vicinity of sensitive installations.� During the 1958�1960
trough (see Table 3), there were an unusual number of �blatant display�
cases for this early period of UFO history. Though the displays were not
unprecedented, they did not become more common until much later. They were
unusual for that time:

� A large number of Air Force officers at Strategic Air Command headquarters
at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, in 1958 observed a cigar-shaped UFO with satellite
objects.

� In the last quarter of 1958 there were at least three cases in which oval
or elliptical UFOs hovered within plain sight, then accelerated and shot
upwards out of sight at incredible speed.

� On February 4, 1959, a reddish object sped back and forth in the path of a
Pan American Airways airliner, then disappeared rapidly upwards. � Father
Gill and others in Papua New Guinea watched a disc with humanoid figures
visible on it. The figures seemed to respond to gestures by the witnesses.

What these cases have in common is their obviousness and closeness to the
witnesses, and their long duration. Few (if any) conventional explanations
come even close to accounting for them. Cases of this type, however, became
common in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 1970�1972 trough (see Table 4),
humanoid sightings and vehicle encounters continued, but nothing that we had
not heard before. During the 1979�1981 trough (see Table 5), several strong
physical evidence cases occurred. Once again, no scientific clues are
immediately obvious.

Remarks
First of all, it is clear that the amount and kind of general news media
reporting on the UFO subject at the time of a wave serves as a sociological
filter factor in some way, its main effect being to give a somewhat
misleading impression of what is really going on. The reporters do not
attempt to distinguish solid, carefully investigated reports (�real� UFOs)
from trivial IFOs. This often makes it seem that a veritable invasion is
going on, whereas in reality the noise level is high.

Waves that were not centered in the United States, or did not have some
highly publicized U.S. UFO cases, tend to be unknown here. Some pronounced
non-U.S. waves have occurred, but they went essentially unreported by our
news media. Examples are 1969, 1977�1978, and to some degree the early 1980s
concentrations in Europe and South America. This journalistic failure, in
and of itself, ought to be of interest to serious scholars. UFOs apparently
do put on spurts of activity from time to time, and new features
occasionally do appear. But how much reliance can we place on the wave and
trough numbers we currently have to be an accurate reflection of wave
magnitude? Several lines of anecdotal evidence suggest that the fundamental
underlying causes of apparent waves and troughs are sociological and
psychological in nature and that waves are not nearly so pronounced as they
appear to be.

When public funding of an independent study of UFOs at the University of
Colorado was announced in 1966, an astounding number of scientists and
academics emerged from the �UFO Underground� to express their support for
scientific study, and public interest soared. Probably not by coincidence,
one of the largest UFO sighting waves of all time occurred in 1967. However,
this wave cannot be explained by misperceptions on the part of people who
desired to see UFOs. Instead�at least for the moment�UFOs were respectable,
witnesses knew they would be taken seriously, and they knew where to report
the sightings because the investigating agencies were much in the news.

Once the University of Colorado Project failed, rent by internal divisions,
political pressures, and confusion over proper methodology, UFOs were once
again debunked. The scientists and academics then vanished once more into
the underground. Anyone with his finger on the UFO pulse knows that this
underground movement still exists and is substantial. Due to their caution
and conservatism, however, these scientists and academics surface only when
it is (politically and otherwise) safe to do so. The message is that
ridicule is a powerful factor in suppression of objective UFO reporting and
investigation. This despite the fact that, as J. Allen Hynek stated,
�ridicule is not part of the scientific method.� Clear documentation exists
to show that important groups of people are inhibited by the ridicule factor
from reporting their sightings or participating in open scientific study of
UFOs. Airline pilots, at times, have been restricted by their companies from
talking about the subject. Individual pilots on their own, with good reason,
have concluded that it would be professional suicide to talk openly about
their sightings. Military service career-ists often experience the same
pressures.

Charles I. Halt, Colonel, USAF, retired, recently acknowledged in a public
talk that he feared for his reputation and career when he went out into the
field expecting to find a simple answer for the �lights� that were spooking
his men outside of Bentwaters AFB, England, in December 1980, but instead
personally experienced some mystifying events which he felt obliged to
report up the chain of command. Later, the senior enlisted men involved
confided in Halt that they, too, had held back on reporting all that they
had experienced for fear of damaging their professional careers. When all
the evidence is pieced together about the Bentwaters event, it can be
clearly seen as a pivotal case in the effort to unravel the UFO mystery.
Overwhelming credible testimony is out there, if we could only get past the
misleading and confusing speculation that so dominates the field.

In order to do that, we must first penetrate the ridicule curtain. The
ridicule factor has a powerful net effect in inhibiting some of the best
potential witnesses from fully reporting their experiences, so that
persuasive testimony and important evidence are lost and UFOs fail to
receive the scientific attention they so badly need. Most veteran UFO
investigators will have encountered bitter and cynical UFO witnesses who
swear they will never report another sighting to anyone, however
spectacular, because of the ridicule and the negative effects on their lives
and careers. Next time a news reporter asks you, �Why is it that only little
old ladies in tennis shoes report UFOs?� you may want to suggest that maybe
they are the only ones naive enough to do so. News media, in general, serve
only to perpetuate the stereotypes. Little in the way of vigorous
investigative reporting has been applied to the subject, largely because of
the scientific disdain and the prejudices of editors. Television news shows
usually report UFOs only as their light story of the day: �Now let�s all
have a big laugh about the latest flying saucer story.� In the final
analysis there is no question that many hundreds, perhaps many thousands, of
sightings by competent and credible witnesses are suppressed because of the
ridicule, and the failure of our major institutions to address the subject
squarely.

On top of that, many cases never are carefully and thoroughly investigated.
Under these circumstances, we cannot be at all sure about the frequency of
real UFO sightings. Those seeming tidal waves, truth be known, may be more
like ripples. But those ripples are portentous.